Originally Posted by Dean
I'd agree. They really should have spit the men and women up. As it really is a different game.
Not really sure why Laver's position is the subject of so much contention??
He did things that no else did and probably never will again.
Everyone speaks famously of the double Grand Slam. but really we should be speak of the triple. He did sweep the four major titles in the pro ranks in 1967 as well.
To me he exhibits everything that the greats should be measured on. Longevity, records held/broken, skill, consistency and adaptability over all surfaces and temperament under pressure.
and how many of those 4 pro majors in 67 were on clay ? yes, zero. A fact conveniently glossed over .....
62 of course was the amateur one .... The best players, Rosewall and Hoad were in the pros , a fact highlighted by the beatdowns Hoad/Rosewall gave Laver when he joined the pros in 63
Both 62 and 67 great achievements of course, but neither of them a true Grand Slam ..... One thing to use them to show he was at the top of the game in amateurs first, then pros ( and then open era - 69 ) , another to equate the 62 and 67 to a Grand Slam .....